IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ctl/louvir/2004021.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Harmonization of Food Regulations and Trade in the Single Market : Evidence from Disaggregated Data

Author

Listed:
  • Mark, VANCAUTEREN

    (UNIVERSITE CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES))

  • Bruno, HENRY DE FRAHAN

    (UNIVERSITE CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN,(UCL), Belgium)

Abstract

This paper uses a structural gravity model based on Anderson and van Wincoop (2003) to quantify and test the hypothesis that EU harmonization of food regulations increases EU bilateral trade. Using a self-constructed database that identifies processed food products at a detailed level covered by harmonization, our results suggest that bilateral exports subject to harmonized food regulations are 253 % greater than bilateral exports not covered by harmonized food regulations for 1998. The paper also estimates a tariff equivalent of trade costs that arises from non-harmonized food regulations which ranges between 73 % and 97 %. Both of these effects vary across food sub-sectors.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark, VANCAUTEREN & Bruno, HENRY DE FRAHAN, 2004. "Harmonization of Food Regulations and Trade in the Single Market : Evidence from Disaggregated Data," Discussion Papers (IRES - Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales) 2004021, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
  • Handle: RePEc:ctl:louvir:2004021
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://sites.uclouvain.be/econ/DP/IRES/2004-21.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James E. Anderson & Eric van Wincoop, 2004. "Trade Costs," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(3), pages 691-751, September.
    2. Swann, Peter & Temple, Paul & Shurmer, Mark, 1996. "Standards and Trade Performance: The UK Experience," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(438), pages 1297-1313, September.
    3. James E. Anderson & Eric van Wincoop, 2003. "Gravity with Gravitas: A Solution to the Border Puzzle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(1), pages 170-192, March.
    4. Chen, Natalie, 2004. "Intra-national versus international trade in the European Union: why do national borders matter?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 93-118, May.
    5. Bergstrand, Jeffrey H, 1985. "The Gravity Equation in International Trade: Some Microeconomic Foundations and Empirical Evidence," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 67(3), pages 474-481, August.
    6. Paul Brenton & John Sheehy & Marc Vancauteren, 2001. "Technical Barriers to Trade in the European Union: Importance for Accession Countries," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(2), pages 265-284, June.
    7. Sun, Changyou & Koo, Won W., 2002. "Horizontal And Vertical Intra-Industry Trade In The U.S. Food Processing Industry," Agribusiness & Applied Economics Report 23629, North Dakota State University, Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics.
    8. John C. Beghin & Jean-Christophe Bureau, 2001. "Quantification of Sanitary, Phytosanitary, and Technical Barriers to Trade for Trade Policy Analysis," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 01-wp291, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    9. Trefler, Daniel, 1993. "Trade Liberalization and the Theory of Endogenous Protection: An Econometric Study of U.S. Import Policy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(1), pages 138-160, February.
    10. Alan Deardorff, 1998. "Determinants of Bilateral Trade: Does Gravity Work in a Neoclassical World?," NBER Chapters,in: The Regionalization of the World Economy, pages 7-32 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Bergstrand, Jeffrey H, 1989. "The Generalized Gravity Equation, Monopolistic Competition, and the Factor-Proportions Theory in International Trade," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 71(1), pages 143-153, February.
    12. van Berkum, Siemen & van Meijl, Hans, 2000. "The application of trade and growth theories to agriculture: a survey," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 44(4), December.
    13. Otsuki, Tsunehiro & Wilson, John S. & Sewadeh, Mirvat, 2001. "Saving two in a billion: : quantifying the trade effect of European food safety standards on African exports," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 495-514, October.
    14. Andrew K. Rose & Eric van Wincoop, 2001. "National Money as a Barrier to International Trade: The Real Case for Currency Union," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(2), pages 386-390, May.
    15. Calvin, Linda & Krissoff, Barry, 1998. "Technical Barriers To Trade: A Case Study Of Phytosanitary Barriers And U.S. - Japanese Apple Trade," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 23(02), December.
    16. Jonathan Eaton & Samuel Kortum, 2002. "Technology, Geography, and Trade," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(5), pages 1741-1779, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Olayinka Idowu Kareem, 2014. "The European Union Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and Africa’s Exports," RSCAS Working Papers 2014/98, European University Institute.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Food Regulation; Harmonization; European Integration; Gravity Model;

    JEL classification:

    • C31 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models; Quantile Regressions; Social Interaction Models
    • F15 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Economic Integration
    • Q17 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agriculture in International Trade
    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ctl:louvir:2004021. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Virginie LEBLANC). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/iruclbe.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.